Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 29th August, 2025
M/S MRK INFRA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akshay Allagh, Adv.
Through: Ms. Urvi Mohan, Adv. for GNCTD.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- M/S MRK Infra through its Proprietor, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the Show Cause Notice dated 31st May, 2024 (hereinafter ‘SCN’) and the impugned order dated 8th
3. Additionally, the petition also challenges the vires of Notification NO. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023, Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023, Notification 9/2023-State Tax dated 31st March, 2023and Notification 56/2023-State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 August, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) passed in respect of Financial Year 2019-20 by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi. Vide the impugned order a demand of Rs.24,56,921/- has been raised against the Petitioner. (hereinafter ‘impugned notifications’).
4. The validity of the impugned notifications was under consideration before this Court in a batch of petitions with the lead petition being W.P.(C) 16499/2023 titled ‘DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.’. In the said batch of petitions, on 22nd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notification and accordingly, the following order was passed:
observations in respect of invalidity of Notification NO. 56 of 2023 (Central Tax). This judgment of the Telangana High Court is now presently under consideration by the Supreme Court in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax &Ors. The Supreme Court vide order dated 21st February, 2025, passed the following order in the said case:
before the Bombay High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In the Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 12th March, 2025, all the writ petitions have been disposed of in terms of the interim orders passed therein. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:
8. The Court has heard ld. Counsels for the parties for a substantial period today. A perusal of the above would show that various High Courts have taken a view and the matter is squarely now pending before the Supreme Court.
9. Apart from the challenge to the notifications itself, various counsels submit that even if the same are upheld, they would still pray for relief for the parties as the Petitioners have been unable to file replies due to several reasons and were unable to avail of personal hearings in most cases. In effect therefore in most cases the adjudication orders are passed ex-parte. Huge demands have been raised and even penalties have been imposed.
10. Broadly, there are six categories of cases which are pending before this Court. While the issue concerning the validity of the impugned notifications is presently under consideration before the Supreme Court, this Court is of the prima facie view that, depending upon the categories of petitions, orders can be passed affording an opportunity to the Petitioners to place their stand before the adjudicating authority. In some cases, proceedings including appellate remedies may be permitted to be pursued by the Petitioners, without delving into the question of the validity of the said notifications at this stage.
6. However, in cases where the challenge is to the parallel State
11. The said categories and proposed reliefs have been broadly put to the parties today. They may seek instructions and revert by tomorrow i.e., 23rd April, 2025.”
5. Thereafter, on 23rd April, 2025, this Court, having noted that the validity of the impugned notifications is under consideration before the Supreme Court,had disposed of several matters in the said batch of petitions after addressing other factual issues raised in the respective petitions. Additionally, while disposing of the said petitions, this Court clearly observed that the validity of the impugned notifications therein shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. NO. 4240/2025 titled “M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax &Ors.” Notifications, the same have been retained for consideration by this Court. The lead matter in the said batch is W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled “Engineers India Limited v. Union of India &Ors.”
7. On the facts of the present case, the SCN was issued to the Petitioner on 31st May, 2024. A reminder notice is also stated to have been issued to the Petitioner on 27th June, 2024. The submission on behalf of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner had also applied for cancellation of the GST registration way back on 11th
April, 2022. However, the said application has not been considered by the GST Department. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that no reply to the SCN was filed by the Petitioner. The impugned order was thereafter, passed on 8th August, 2024. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) 4779/2025 titled ‘Sugandha Enterprises through its Proprietor Devender Kumar Singh V. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Others’ and W.P. (C)/13671/2024 titled “M/S Jinender Paper Mart through its proprietor vs. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO Ward 12, Zone-2, Delhi and Ors”
8. The Court has heard the parties. In fact, this Court in Sugandha Enterprises through its Proprietor Devender Kumar Singh (Supra), under similar circumstances where no reply was filed to the SCN had remanded the matter in the following terms:
7. Heard. The Court has considered the submissions made. The Court has perused the records. In this petition, as mentioned above, no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner. Relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under: And whereas, the taxpayer had neither deposited the proposed demand nor filed their objections/ reply in DRC-06 within the stipulated period of time, therefore, following the Principle of Natural Justice, the taxpayer was granted opportunities of personal hearing for submission of their reply/objections against the proposed demand before passing any adverse order.
9. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the Petitioner did And whereas, neither the taxpayer filed objections/reply in DRC 06 nor appeared for personal hearing despite giving sufficient opportunities, therefore, the undersigned is left with no other option but to upheld the demand raised in SCN/DRC 01. DRC 07 is issued accordingly.
8. This Court is of the opinion that since the Petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to be heard and the said SCN and the consequent impugned order have been passed without hearing the Petitioner, an opportunity ought to be afforded to the Petitioner to contest the matter on merits.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted 30 days’ time to file the reply to SCN. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue to the Petitioner, a notice for personal hearing. The personal hearing notice shall be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no. and e-mail address:....” not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted time till 30th Email ID: September, 2025, to file the reply to SCN. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a notice for personal hearing to the Petitioner. The personal hearing notice shall be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no. and e-mail address: allaghchambers@gmail.com Mobile: 9811118257
11. The reply filed by the Petitioner to the SCN along with the submissions made in the personal hearing proceedings shall be duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority and fresh order with respect to the SCN shall be passed accordingly.
12. Access to the GST Portal, shall be provided to the Petitioner within one week to enable uploading of the reply as also access to the notices and related documents.
13. However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of the impugned notifications is left open. Any order passed by the Adjudicating Authority shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax &Ors. and this Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled ‘Engineers India Limited v. Union of India &Ors’.
14. All rights and remedies of the parties are left open.
15. The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. All the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE AUGUST 29, 2025/kp/ck